The Emporia weekly news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1881-1889, 1887-11-24
ANoTRRR PROTRsT.

AHOGdA16 y OAA0xs L
Mr.. EDrroR:-In your notice of the
action taken of remonstrance against
a certain number of druggists, you
seem to have espoused the cause Of the i
and condemned the remon-
STRANGE. You say 'that it is not con-
elusive that because aman has violated
the former law that he win violate |
this one" People generally fail to |
trust a person If he has once violated |
sacred obligation. For that very rea
give expression to their views on the
subject. We have our convictions
when we see men frequent the drug
stores of these different places, who
are known to indulge to intoXicatdOn.
We felt that something must De done.
and preferred to grant the permit for
medical and scientific purposes toour
young men, believing that they would
feel greater responsibility in the trust
imposed upon them. You also say that
three ladies have taken their names on
the list. learn that it was caused by
one of the druggists threat to with
draw his patronage from one OF our
business men because the wife signed
this paper. If the druggists wish to
boycott my husband for this same rea-
son, all right. We don't want their
UlOlOYs IL u u DlOO0 AlOACys L 6kkACA
that paper as an expression OF my prin-
ciples. Furthermore, am willing to
stand by them, regardless Of all personal
feeling towards the families of the
druggists, among whom are my best
friends. Some 1 have known from
their childhood and esteem very highly.
I am willing to vouch for the women
of this city. AS mass they are with
me. We are in earnest. We intend to
Gr,h% 30 - 10 -
will not try to answer the plea OF the
typhoid question, simply say that two
of my sons had the disease the same
winter, each was treated by different
physicians, one giving brandy the
other no liquor. Both recovered, and
may meet a more deadly foe than
typhoid-malaria in form Of q drug
store. A MOTHER.
In justice to THE NEWS, we wish to
say that we have no recollection Of
making use Of any such argument as is
referred to above, about violating one
law and keeping another. This argu-
ment, we believe, was made use of, but
not by. this paper. Neither did this paper
state that three ladies had taken their
names of the list. We are informed,
however, that not only three, but a
great many more than three ladies,
have taken their names from the pro-
test, claiming that they had signed it
without reading it.
But all the above is irrelevant to the
real matter. The Murray law as
passed by the last legislature makes
no provisions for protests of any
kind against taking out permits, espe-
cially protests which do not state any
good reasons why the permits should
be refused. The protest referred to.
and which was placed in the hands Of
the probate judge, did not give any cause
or reason whatever why the permits
should be refused. 1t simply, in effect
said, 1--WE, the undersigned, don't want
certain druggist to have permits, but
are willing certain others should have
them.''
Now the law is very specific on this
subject, and provides means and meth
DDS for keeping those not entitled to
permits from obtaining them. But in
all the provisions made there is not one
word Of reference to protest. If any,
or all, of the druggists referred to and
personally mentioned in the document
now in the hands of Judge harrington
are persons unworthy to be trusted
with permits, then let these protesters
take the means prescribed by law to
keep them from getting them, and not
take to the methods Of what they so
bitterly denounce when used against
themselves-a boycott.
Again, in reference to the use of slim
ulants for typho-malarial fever and
other diseases, 1t is well known that
all our best physicians prescribe brandy
in some form for them, and that it is
considered the best, if not the only, rem
edy in many cases; and the cases Of the
two sons referred to above do not bear
on the subject at all.
But the real pith of the whole subject
lies in the point that one or two
leaders among the ladies of the city
wish to dictate who shall and who
shall not have permits, thus virtully
making privileged class, to the ex-
clusion Of some of the most worthy and
best, as well as oldest business men of
the city, whose words are as good as
their bonds, and who it were base in
justice to class as dishonorable and I'M
worthy.
1t must be an admitted fact that
liquor is absolutely necessary for many
purposes, and the law prescribes that
druggists may sell it under certain con-
ditions. These conditions being COM
piled with, the judge alone shall say
whether permit will be issued. If
a man be unworthy or otherwise in
eligible to take out druggist permit,
then let this be shown, and there is
little doubt Judge harrington win re-
fuse to issue one.